On the heels of CBS acquiring CNET for $1.8-billion comes another deal involving “old” media and “new” media: according to TechCrunch, the folks over at Conde Nast — the magazine publishing family that owns Vogue, the New Yorker and Wired — have plunked down about $25-million for Ars Technica, the tech site that recently caused a minor blog storm over an alleged lack of attribution in their blogs posts. Kara Swisher of All Things D has a video interview with site co-founder Ken “Caesar” Fisher.

Although Conde Nast is mostly known for print magazines, it has been making inroads into digital publishing, including the purchase of Wired (for about $25-million) last year, as well as the acquisition of Digg competitor Reddit. Conde also owns Epicurious.com and the recently-launched online magazine Portfolio, and has other online assets including Style.com and Brides.com. Conde Nast is a unit of Advance Publications, a private company controlled by the Newhouse family that also owns a number of local business journals and U.S. newspapers.

According to FM Publishing’s page on Ars Technica, the site gets about 19 million page views a month (TechCrunch says the site gets 4.5 million uniques a month, according to a source). With a CPM fee of about $36 per ad, that means the site could make as much as $2-million a month in advertising revenue — and it apparently has just eight employees, including co-founders Ken “Caesar” Fisher and Jon “Hannibal” Stokes, who started the site in 1998.


I remembered that Doug McIntyre from 24/7 Wall Street did a financial analysis of some of the leading blogs and their theoretical value awhile back, so I went and looked at it, and here’s what he said:

“Ars Technica: $15 million. High church high tech blog. Sites ranks 2,500 in Alexa. Compete shows over 800,000 visitors. Audience is growing very rapidly. Quancast has reach at 1.1 million. Ads are all premium clients. Site should be getting $40 per page CPM. Page views are probably six million a month. Revenue of almost $3 million. Site appears to have high end edit staff writing. Margin estimated at 35%. High-end site should be very valuable. Fifteen times operating profit.”

Not bad, Doug. Obviously Conde Nast thought it was worth a little more. Ken Fisher’s note to the Ars community is here.

About the author

Mathew 2430 posts

I'm a Toronto-based senior writer with Fortune magazine, and my favorite things to write about are social technology, media and the evolution of online behavior

10 Responses to “Ars Technica snapped up by Conde Nast”
  1. Congrats to the Ars guys. I think they deserve it, and here's hoping that Conde Naste doesn't come in and screw it up. I think it's fair to say that Reddit hasn't been screwed up by Conde Nast, yet. Harder to imagine how it might effect a content company however!

  2. Am still waitng for Arrington to write this one: “Why Conde bought Ars, and not the other way around?”

    more seriously, this one is bizarre. ars isn't very relevant and conde is limited when it comes to the high tech space. the cbs/cnet deal which you trashed (unfairly, imho) yesterday appears to make for a far more powerful combination.

  3. $36 CPM is very very rich. Even if they get that on some page views, they don't have 100% sell through at that rate.

  4. saw the 24/7 “analysis”. assuming it's right – and i very much doubt those numbers reflect reality – then, folk,s we're back to the bubblicious days. but hey, if ars or any of these other sites can find a buyer, more power to them. nothing wrong with being greedy if some dope is begging to give you their money. but c'mon, we've been here before. or has everyone in the world forgotten the “battle for eyeballs” back a few years ago.

    anyway, pass the bong and inhale deeply. and the band played on

  5. I've been an Ars member since '99. Although the news side of things is very well done, the forums are where it's at (and seemingly where a lot of the current editors have been tapped from).

    Over the past year or two, they've done a really good job on getting onto Slashdot and Google News with their well written articles, which presumably added a lot of value/eyeballs.

    I'd imagine that the forums, the root of the community, don't create much ad revenue (and they might lose a lot of their for-pay subs and for-pay premium subbers). But it probably could if they decided to go with annoying in-your-face adverts.

    Only time will tell, here's to another good 8.5 years.

  6. t has been making inroads into digital publishing, including the purchase of Wired (for about $25-million) last year

Comments are closed.